Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment On Viral Intentions and Purchase Intentions

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283552658
Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment on Viral Intentions and Purchase

Intentions
Article in Journal of Internet Commerce · October 2015

DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2015.1080057
CITATIONS READS
30 2,333
3 authors:
Maria Petrescu Pradeep Korgaonkar

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Florida Atlantic University
102 PUBLICATIONS 1,227 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 4,744 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
John Gironda
Nova Southeastern University
26 PUBLICATIONS 407 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by John Gironda on 16 December 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Internet Commerce
ISSN: 1533-2861 (Print) 1533-287X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wico20
Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment on Viral

Intentions and Purchase Intentions
Maria Petrescu, Pradeep Korgaonkar & John Gironda
To cite this article: Maria Petrescu, Pradeep Korgaonkar & John Gironda (2015) Viral
Advertising: A Field Experiment on Viral Intentions and Purchase Intentions, Journal of Internet
Commerce, 14:3, 384-405, DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2015.1080057
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2015.1080057
Published online: 27 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 31
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wico20
Download by: [John Gironda] Date: 12 December 2015, At: 19:44

Journal of Internet Commerce, 14:384–405, 2015
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1533-2861 print=1533-287X online
DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2015.1080057
Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment on Viral

Intentions and Purchase Intentions
MARIA PETRESCU
H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern
University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA
PRADEEP KORGAONKAR
College of Business, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Downloaded by [John Gironda] at 19:44 12 December 2015
JOHN GIRONDA
Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA
This study conducts an investigation of viral advertising by develop-

ing and testing a model to integrate the influence of three types of
video ad appeals (humor, sex, or information), ad sources (known
or unknown), attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand,
and demographics on intentions to forward an ad and purchase a
brand. The model is tested by collecting data from a sample of
national online consumers. The findings demonstrate the importance
of ad appeals for both attitude toward the ad and viral intentions.
Attitude toward the ad is also found to be a significant influencer
of viral intentions, and mediator of the relationship between ad
appeals and viral intentions. The study also found support for a posi-
tive relationship between viral intentions and purchase intentions.
KEYWORDS advertising appeals, humor, sexual appeal, viral

advertising, viral intentions
INTRODUCTION
Online marketing represents the business trend of contemporary times and a

way for consumers to share brand information, and provide referrals
Address correspondence to Maria Petrescu, Nova Southeastern University, Huizenga

College of Business and Entrepreneurship, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314,
USA. E-mail: mpetresc@nova.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at
www.tandfonline.com/wico.
384
Viral Advertising and Purchase Intentions 385
and feedback to businesses and other consumers (Datta, Chowdhury, and

Chakraborty 2005; Porter and Golan 2006; Vollmer and Precourt 2008). While
there are numerous benefits included in using the Internet for marketing, the
viral potential of advertising messages (i.e., viral advertising) is one of the
most influential (Chu 2011; Eckler and Bolls 2011; Porter and Golan 2006).
A number of firms such as Evian, Dove, Frito-Lay, GoPro, Red Bull, BMW,
and Volkswagen, have begun to utilize viral ads because of the many benefits
that they may entail. Viral advertising allows consumers to control the pro-
cess and decide for themselves if an ad is worth watching=forwarding to
others or not. Thus, video ads that go viral improve a brand’s or product’s
potency (Vollmer and Precourt 2008).
Nevertheless, the data suggest that a large proportion of viral campaigns
do not go viral. Previous research has noted the necessity to study the nature,
characteristics, and evaluation of viral advertising and the most efficient use
of communications among consumers, especially in social networks, as a

means of multiplying a brand’s popularity (Chiu et al. 2007; Grifoni,
D’Andrea, and Ferri 2013; Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton 2011). As the popular
media primarily reports on the overnight success stories of only a few viral ad
campaigns and rarely reports on the more typical failed viral campaigns, it
creates misperceptions that it is easy to create a successful viral advertising
campaign. Nelson-Field (2013) suggested a need to understand why some
viral advertisements are shared and others are not, as less than 5% of viral
campaigns succeed. A similar need has also been echoed by advertisers
(Valos, Ewing, and Powell 2010). Some attempts have been reported in the
academic literature aimed at improving the understanding of why some cam-
paigns go viral and others do not. For example, Aaker and Smith (2010) pro-
posed the ‘‘dragonfly effect’’ as a possible theoretical explanation, noting that
the dragonfly is the only insect able to propel itself in any direction when its
four wings are working in concert. In this manner, synchronized ideas can be
used to create rapid dissemination of content through social media. Other
authors have looked at seeding strategies, meaning the careful selection of
initial target consumers and placement for a viral message (Hinz et al.
2011; Libai, Muller, and Peres 2013). Research has also focused on other fac-
tors that may influence the success of viral campaigns, such as product type
(Schulze, Schöler, and Skiera 2014), audience size (Barasch and Berger
2014), and brand characteristics (Lovett, Peres, and Shachar 2013).
The current study uses a framework that captures the process of viral
advertising in three sub-processes: (1) getting an audience’s attention via a
specific advertising appeal (humor, sex, or information) and source (known
or unknown) of a viral ad; (2) keeping the audience interested, by studying
the influences of attitude toward the ad (Aad) and attitude toward the
brand (Ab); (3) factors influencing behavioral intentions of forwarding
the ad, also referred to as viral intentions (VI), as well as purchase inten-
tions (PI) for the advertised brand. The study integrates all three
386 M. Petrescu et al.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework.
sub-processes in a framework shown in Figure 1. Viral advertising includes

different forms, such as a link to a video ad on YouTube, transmitted to
peers through e-mail, text message, or social media. Viral advertising is
usually personal and=or may come from an identified sponsor. Most of
the well-known viral ads circulating online are ads paid by a sponsor com-
pany, launched either on their own platform (company webpage or social
media profile) or on social media websites such as YouTube, Vimeo, or
DailyMotion (Petrescu and Korgaonkar 2011). Viral advertising is defined
as paid or unpaid electronic (e-mail, web, or social media) distribution of
business or user generated advertisements from consumer to consumer
(Petrescu and Korgaonkar 2011; Plummer et al. 2007).
This article analyzes a number of factors that may influence the success
of viral advertising campaigns, including the type of advertising appeal, the
message source, and the role of VI in the advertising framework, as well as
their impact on PI. A study such as this should serve to benefit both research
and practice by shining new light on viral marketing communications, which
has become a very current and beneficial topic in the field of marketing.
The remainder of this article will be structured as follows. First, the con-
ceptual framework and hypotheses are developed. Second, the methodology
is described. Third, the results of the empirical field experiment study exam-
ining key factors influencing viral advertising success are presented. Fourth,
the authors discuss the study’s contributions to the marketing literature.
Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of managerial implications

and possible directions for future research.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This research focuses on key elements likely to influence VI and PI depicted

in the conceptual framework in Figure 1. The following section provides
rational for the hypothesized links in Figure 1.
AD Appeals
Consumers are more willing to forward an ad if it has a higher degree of utili-
tarian and hedonic values, is more engaging, entertaining, and=or highly
emotional (Berger and Milkman 2012; Botha and Reyneke 2013; Chiu et al.
2007; Phelps et al. 2004; Taylor et al. 2011). Berger and Milkman (2012) as
well as Henke (2013) found that individuals who experience emotional
engagement are more likely to forward a marketing message, while other stu-
dies found enjoyment to be a key element for viral videos (Chen and Lee
2014). According to a study performed by Porter and Golan (2006), besides
funny and humorous ads, other types of appeals used by viral advertisers
include sex, nudity, and violence. Consumers are more willing to forward
an ad if it has a higher degree of utilitarian and hedonic values, is more
engaging, entertaining, and highly emotional (Chiu et al. 2007; Dobele
et al. 2005, 2007; Phelps et al. 2004; Simmons 2007; Stanbouli 2003). This
is why ads containing naked pictures or jokes in addition to information
are the most common in the viral world (Horovitz 2009). For these reasons,
the current study analyzes three of the most popular ad appeals used in the
most popular viral ads circulating online: sex, humor, and informative
appeals. Although many other appeals such as fear, greed, and altruism
among others could have been studied, these were not included because
of minimal popularity of the video ads posted online with those appeals.
HUMOROUS APPEALS
Published research and practice have generally shown that humor has a sig-
nificant positive effect on attention and recall, with the potential to increase
processing and comprehension (Chattopadhyay and Basu 1990; Scott, Klein,
and Bryant 1990; Weinberger and Gulas 1992). Some of the most memorable
ads on the American market were based on a humorous appeal, including
the Bud Light and Joe Isuzu commercials (Alden, Hoyer, and Lee 1993). Stu-
dies on direct marketing showed that many advertisements, such as infomer-
cials, are enjoyable, even funny or humorous, given their need to attract and
maintain attention (Korgaonkar et al. 1997). For these reasons, the authors
hypothesize, according to previous literature, that humorous ads will posi-

tively influence Aad.
H1a: Humorous ads positively affect Aad.
In a viral context, a humorous ad appeal, including variations of comedic

violence, is one of the most frequently forwarded content types, due to its
capacity to spark strong emotions (Brown, Bhadury, and Pope 2010; Phelps
et al. 2004). A study in the context of forwarding e-mails as opposed to
videos showed jokes=humorous e-mails were the second most forwarded
e-mails, representing about 40% of all forwarded e-mails (Phelps et al. 2004).
The positive effects of humor on advertising stem from its capacity to
improve consumers’ moods, creating joy and satisfaction, with the potential
to transfer these feelings to the brand (Cline, Altsech, and Kellaris 2003).
Hence, the funnier consumers think an ad is, the higher their intention to for-
ward the ad will be. Thus, the authors hypothesize:
H1b: Humorous ads positively affect VI.
Sexual Appeals
Studies show that a sexual ad will attract significant initial attention and will
also retain this attention for longer periods of time in comparison to other
types of ads (Liu, Cheng, and Li 2009). Sexual ads also increase consumers’
recall and recognition of an ad, a brand, and key messages found within an
ad (Shimp, Wood, and Smarandescu 2007). The evocation of positive emo-
tions and excitement can subsequently reflect in improved Aad and the adver-
tised brand. In this context, Reichert, Latour, and Ford (2011) have noted that
sex appeal has the potential to lead to positive attitudes toward the brand and
the ad, and can even prove more persuasive than other ads, because it cap-
tures attention for a longer time. In conformity with previous research, the
authors hypothesize that sexual appeals will lead to an improved Aad.
H2a: Sex appeals in advertising positively affect Aad.
The influence of sex appeals on behavioral intention is especially important

in the context of viral advertising, where sexual content has the potential to
increase forwarding intentions. In the context of viral advertising, most of the
e-mails forwarded by consumers and thus considered viral according to
Phelps and colleagues (2004) included some type of sexual appeal. The evo-
cation of positive emotions and excitement can subsequently reflect in
improved Aad and Ab. In this context, Reichert and colleagues (2011) have
noted that sex appeal has the potential to lead to positive attitudes toward
the brand and the ad, and can even prove more persuasive than other ads,
because it holds attention for a longer time. Given the previous literature
review, the authors hypothesize that advertisements including sexual appeals
will be more likely to be forwarded by consumers.
H2b: Sex appeals in advertising positively affect VI.
INFORMATIVE APPEALS
Informative appeals involve the central route to persuasion and often attempt
to influence consumers based on logic, reason, and evidence of a product’s
benefits. Because they are factual in nature, these types of appeals are nor-
mally not as entertaining or interesting as emotional appeals. However,
informative appeals can be very useful and are well liked by consumers
(Tellis 2004), thus they still have the potential to create a positive Aad. There-
fore, the authors hypothesize:
H3a: Informative appeals positively affect Aad.
While informative appeals are well liked, they nevertheless may lack the novelty
needed to motivate consumers to forward these ads to members of their social
network (Berger and Milkman 2012). Regarding the application of emotional
versus informative appeals in advertising, the issue is complex and includes
many nuances (Muehling and McCann 1993). For example, Edell and Burke
(1987) found that individuals’ attitude toward an ad is influenced by the inter-
action of various ad types, such as informational versus transformational. They
concluded that feelings influence Aad, especially when the ads are transforma-
tional, rather than informational. The current authors conjecture that while con-
sumers may demonstrate a positive attitude toward ads with informative
appeals, they may still be far less likely to pass along these ads due to the lack
of high excitement about their content. Thus, the authors hypothesize:
H3b: Informative advertisements negatively affect VI.
AD Source
Source credibility refers to how trusted the communicator is perceived to be
in the respective domain under discussion. Usually, known sources have a
significant influence on consumer behavior because they are perceived as
having no self-serving intentions, or nothing to gain, from the consumption
recommendations they make (Cheung, Greenacre, and Freeman 2014; Chiu
et al. 2007). This is why messages coming from known sources are perceived
as more credible, and consumers perceived social networks as valuable
sources of information (Akar and Topçu 2011; Chiu et al. 2007; Phelps et al.
2004; Xiao, Zhuang, and Hsu 2014). Therefore, in the context of viral
advertising, it stands to reason that consumers will be much more receptive

to ads coming from known sources. Thus, the authors hypothesize:
H4a: Messages received from known sources will lead to a more positive
Aad than messages received from unknown sources.
Moreover, research has shown that consumers who have strong ties with the
advertiser (i.e., know the advertiser well) and who have a strong influence on
others are more likely to participate in the success of viral ads (Liu-Thompkins
2012; Vázquez-Casielles, Álvarez, and Del Rı́o-Lanza 2013). Along these lines,
individuals should be more willing to forward advertisements if those ads
come from a known source, rather than an unknown source. This is especially
true in an online medium as it reduces the chance of scams, spam, or malicious
viruses attached to the videos. Therefore, the authors hypothesize:
H4b: Messages received from known sources will lead to higher VI than
messages received from unknown sources.
Demographics and VI
User demographics are an integral part of marketing and advertising research,
having an impact on numerous aspects such as target segments, buyer pro-
files, or reactions to advertising. Therefore, age, gender, and education were
chosen as the select user characteristics to be included in the model.
Age
Researchers have found that younger individuals evaluate advertising more
positively than older consumers (De Gregorio and Sung 2010; Muehling
and McCann 1993). Research also noted that younger consumers are more
likely to be heavier Internet users than older individuals (Korgaonkar and
Wolin 1999). Given this information and the fact that viral advertising usually
contains provocative, controversial content, accompanied by humorous or
sexual appeals (Cruz and Fill 2008; Porter and Golan 2006), it stands to rea-
son that the main target for viral ads seems to be younger individuals. Thus,
the authors hypothesize:
H5a: Age is negatively related to VI.
Gender
In the context of gender, women rather than men are more likely to use e-mail
to keep in touch with their contacts and to forward e-mail messages to their
social group (Phelps et al. 2004). Vollmer and Precourt (2008) also supported
this claim of gender differences.
Additionally, in a market maven study, Goodey and East (2008) concluded

that gender differences in word-of-mouth can come from different needs and
motivations the two genders have. For example, females were more likely to
engage in word-of-mouth behavior because of satisfaction with the product,
desire to talk about it, and intention to help others. Furthermore, research on
consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influence also notes that this individ-
ual characteristic is generally greater for women rather than men (Churchill and
Moschis 1979). Therefore, given women’s increased likelihood of forwarding
e-mail messages and word-of-mouth participation, they should also be more
likely to engage in viral advertising. Thus, the authors hypothesize:
H5b: Women have higher VI than men.
Education
Regarding education and advertising, a review of Muehling and McCann

(1993) concludes that there is an inverse relationship between individuals’
education level and Aad, with better-educated consumers usually liking
advertising less. Research on market mavens reaches a similar conclusion
that they tend to be slightly less educated than other consumers in general.
Finally, research on product placement, for example, also found that edu-
cation level is inversely related to attitudes toward placement of ads (De
Gregorio and Sung 2010). Given these findings, a similar relationship should
be present in the context of viral advertising. Thus, the authors hypothesize:
H5c: Less educated consumers are more likely to forward a viral adver-
tisement.
Finally, the study includes income as a covariate variable influencing consu-

mers’ intention to purchase the advertised product. Due to the easy access to
the Internet for all categories of consumers, including low-income users in
the United States, the authors do not consider it as a significant influence
on consumers’ intention to engage in viral activities and forward ads; how-
ever, as shown by previous research (Phelps et al. 2004) and common
knowledge, the authors consider income as an important determinant of con-
sumer PI. Hence, it is included as a covariate.
AAD, AB, and VI

Muehling and McCann (1993) reviewed thirty-seven studies showing that
individuals’ Aad had a direct influence on Ab. Previous research also
supports the mediated effect of Aad on intentions (such as PI), through its
influence on Ab (Biehal, Stephens, and Curlo 1992; MacKenzie, Lutz, and
Belch 1986). Confirming previous studies, the first relation of interest is that
of the relationship between Aad and Ab.
H6a: Aad positively affects Ab.
Aad is a key variable measuring consumers’ opinion about a specific adver-

tisement, including their liking=disliking of it. Previous literature showed the
significant relationship between attitudes and behaviors, finding attitudes as
predictors of consumer behavior in relation to a product or service (Mitchell
and Olson 1981). In the context of viral advertising, Aad should be the key
predictor of consumers’ VI, since individuals are willing to pass along ads
that they like and appreciate.
H6b: Aad positively affects consumers’ VI.
MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) defined Aad as a predisposition to respond in a

favorable or unfavorable manner to a specific advertising stimulus during

an exposure occasion, in agreement with the Fishbein and Ajzen (1985)
definition of attitude. In this context, Aad refers to a specific exposure to
a particular ad, not to advertising in general, which will be the view used
in this research project. Aad is considered a function of feelings and
thoughts about the ad (Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nayer 1999; Laczniak and
Carlson 1989; MacKenzie et al. 1986). MacKenzie and colleagues (1986)
saw Aad as purely affective, with no cognitive or behavioral component,
and situational bound.
In conformity with previous literature, this study analyzes the mediating
role of Aad between ad characteristics (ad appeals and ad source) on the one
hand and VI on the other hand. In this context, the authors hypothesize that
Aad will mediate the relationship between the advertisement appeal or the
ad source and VI.
H7: Aad mediates the relationship between (a) humor appeals and VI,
(b) sexual appeals and VI, (c) informative appeals and VI, and (d)
ad source and VI.
Given the importance of Ab on consumers’ behavioral intentions, as noted by
the studies reviewed in this section, the authors also include this variable as a
predictor of consumers’ VI regarding the advertisement they just viewed.
Based off of previous research mentioned in this section, and considering
that consumers are more likely to forward advertisements for brands that
they like, it is estimated that Ab will positively influence the behavioral vari-
ables in this model, (i.e., VI and PI) (Biehal et al. 1992; MacKenzie et al.
1986). Therefore, the authors include Ab as positively related to consumers’
viral and PI.
H8a: Ab positively affects consumers’ VI.

H8b: Ab positively affects consumers’ PI.
VI and PI
Research and practitioner articles have discussed the economic benefits of
viral advertising not only to build widespread brand awareness, but also to
help generate consumer interest, product trials, and sales (Kirby and Marsden
2006). Viral advertisements are about touching a vital nerve point in consu-
mers in order to exponentially increase the diffusion and impact of the mess-
age (Shukla 2010; Welker 2002). Their key point is to make consumers
associate the good feelings experienced from the ad with the sponsor (Porter
and Golan 2006).
There are also examples from practice regarding the estimated effect of
viral ads on company sales. For instance, the now famous ‘‘blend everything’’
commercials from Blendtec have led to an estimated 800% increase in sales
(Truong 2010). Thus, just like positive word-of-mouth, viral advertising is
thought to motivate and lead consumers to product trial and acquisition.

Thus, the authors hypothesize:
H9: VI positively affect consumers’ PI.
METHODOLOGY
Pretest
Pretests of nine different video ads from Europe were conducted to select
three videos with the three appeals (i.e., humor, sex, and information) for
use in the final study. The pretests were designed to also make sure subjects
in the United States were not aware of the brands or the specific ads in order
to control for preexisting brand and ad perceptions. Pretests were also con-
ducted to ascertain the validly and reliability of the measures to be used in
the final study. The pretest sample included 368 usable responses, with a
minimum of thirty-five responses for each of the seven commercials, using
a sample of undergraduate and graduate business students.
Measures for VI were adapted from the intention to recommend (Chiu
et al. 2007; Maxham and Netemeyer 2002) and intention to purchase scales
(MacKenzie et al. 1986). Additionally, the study asked the respondents to
click the Facebook ‘‘Like’’ button if they liked the video. If they clicked ‘‘Like’’
at the end of the survey, they were asked to provide a list of e-mails if they
wanted to forward the ad to any of their contacts. This was another measure
of VI separate from the VI scale that was included in the questionnaire. Based
on the pretests, the commercials with the highest score for ad appeals were
from Ariel for informative appeal, Agent Provocateur for sexual appeal, and
Zazoo Condoms for humorous appeal. The videos were presented in the
context of a Facebook webpage.
Ad source was manipulated by telling the respondents to consider that

they received the video from either a known or unknown source on
Facebook. All items were measured using five-point semantic differential
scales. The validity and reliability of all measurement scales used in the final
study are reported in the Appendix.
Sample Main Study

In order to test the study’s hypotheses, data were collected from a random
national consumer sample of 400 individuals provided by the Internet survey
research firm Qualtrics. The sample included a heterogeneous display of
respondents regarding different demographic variables. After eliminating the
missing data observations, the usable sample includes 388 full responses.
The distribution of responses on demographic variables, including gender,
age, education, income, ethnicity, and location, showed a heterogeneous

and nationally representative sample. Table 1 shows the sample characteristics.
Data Analysis and Results

This section focuses on analyzing the data obtained following the application
of the field experiment. First, factor analysis was conducted to assess the fit of
the scales measuring the variables in the model and to assess the fit of the VI
scale. The results are reported in the Appendix. Following the scale assess-
ment procedures, MANOVA, chi-square, regression, and structural equation
modeling were used to test the hypotheses proposed in the previous
sections.
Ad Appeals and Ad Source

In this section, the effects of ad appeals and ad source, as well as the relation-
ship between Aad and VI are reported. MANOVA was used to assess the
effects of the three ad appeals (humor, sex, and informative), and the two
ad sources (known and unknown) on Aad and VI. The results of the overall
MANOVA procedure are presented in Table 2.
The F-test significance notes that ad appeals have a significant influence
on both Aad and VI, and differ regarding the effects of the three types of
appeals. However, ad source (known or unknown) is insignificant for both
variables (Aad and VI), demonstrating a lack of support for Hypothesis 4.
In order to test Hypotheses 1–3, a multiple comparison adhoc procedure
with MANOVA, using the LSD method, was performed. The results are pre-
sented in Table 3. The informative ad has the highest effect on Aad, followed
by humorous and then sexual appeals, respectively. Regarding VI, humor is
the most effective, followed by informative and sexual appeals, respectively.
Overall, the analysis finds support for Hypotheses 1a and b, 2a and b, and 3a.
TABLE 1 Sample Demographic Distribution

Frequency Percent
Gender:
Male 207 53.4
Female 181 46.6
Total 388 100.0
Age:
18–25 113 29.1
26–34 88 22.7
35–44 71 18.3
45–64 102 26.3
65 and older 14 3.6
Total 388 100.0
Educational background:
Some high school 29 7.5
High school 114 29.4
Undergraduate studies 134 34.5
Graduate studies 79 20.4

Postgraduate studies 32 8.2
Total 388 100.0
Yearly household income:
Less than $40,000 179 46.1
$40k–$80k 132 34.0
$81k–$120k 49 12.6
$121k–$160k 12 3.1
More than $160k 16 4.1
Total 388 100.0
Ethnicity:
White (Non-Hispanic) 280 72.2
African American 31 8.0
Hispanic American 24 6.2
Asian American 26 6.7
American Indian 5 1.3
Other 22 5.7
Total 388 100.0
TABLE 2 MANOVA Results for Ad Appeal and Ad Source

Effect Value F Sig.
Known Pillai’s Trace .013 2.452 .088

Wilks’ Lambda .987 2.452 .088
Hotelling’s Trace .013 2.452 .088
Roy’s Largest Root .013 2.452 .088
Appeal Pillai’s Trace .119 12.112 .000
Wilks’ Lambda .884 12.159 .000
Hotelling’s Trace .128 12.206 .000
Roy’s Largest Root .094 17.955 .000
Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares df Sig.
Known Att. Ad 2.514 1 .104
Viral Intent .001 1 .977
Appeal Att. Ad 23.511 2 .000
Viral Intent 33.155 2 .000
TABLE 3 MANOVA Multiple Comparison for Ad Appeal

Dependent variable (I) Appeal Mean (J) Appeal Mean difference (I–J) Sig.
Att. Ad Humor .1313 Sex .4696140 .000

Info .0913563 .453
Sex .338 Humor .4696140 .000
Info .5609703 .000
Info .22 Humor .0913563 .453
Sex .5609703 .000
Viral Intent Humor .33 Sex .7060390 .000
Info .2809870 .020
Sex .37 Humor .7060390 .000
Info .4250520 .000
Info .052 Humor .2809870 .020
Sex .4250520 .000

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Tests were then run regarding two behavioral intention items:

(1) whether the respondents clicked the ‘‘Like’’ button as representing Aad
and (2) whether they provided any e-mails to which they want the ad for-
warded, representing viral behavior. As Tables 4 and 5 show, the results of
the chi-square are similar to previous findings (i.e., ad appeal is significant
for both liking the ad and forwarding the ad).
In the same context, to test the mediating role of Aad between ad
appeals, ad source, and VI, the three-step regression technique, as recom-
mended by Baron and Kenny (1986), was used instead of structural equation
modeling.
In testing for mediation, Aad was regressed on ad appeal and ad source.
The results of the first regression are shown in Table 6. Ad appeal had a sig-
nificant influence on Aad, with all three appeals positively influencing it,
again providing support for Hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 3a. Again, ad source
was insignificant.
The second regression procedure regressed VI on ad appeals and ad
source. As in the previous analysis, ad appeal significantly influenced Aad,
TABLE 4 Chi-Square with Ad Liking

Pearson chi-square Value df Asymp. sig. (2-sided)
Ad liking vs. ad appeal 11.338 2 .003

Ad liking vs. ad source .480 1 .488
TABLE 5 Chi-Square with E-Mail Forward

Pearson chi-square Value df Asymp. sig. (2-sided)
E-mail forward vs. ad appeal 10.597 2 .005

E-mail forward vs. ad source .625a 1 .429
TABLE 6 Regression Test for Mediation

Regression 1: Aad on Ad Regression 2: VI on Ad Regression 3: VI on Aad,
appeal and Ad source appeal and Ad source Ad appeal, and Ad source
Standardized beta Standardized beta Standardized beta
Variable coefficients coefficients coefficients
Source known 0.08 0.001 0.053

Humor 0.219 0.333 0.184
Informational 0.262 0.199 0.021
Aad 0.679
F 9.287 11.993 102.115
R2 0.068 0.086 0.516

N ¼ 388; p < .01; p < .05.
with all three appeals positively influencing it, once again providing support
for Hypotheses 1b and 2b. At the same time, ad source was again insignifi-
cant. The third step in the mediation testing involves regressing VI on ad
appeals and source, as well as on Aad. The results are presented in Table 6.
In order to find a mediation relationship, the effect of the independent
variables (ad appeal and ad source) must be less in this equation than in the
second. This was the result shown by the regression procedure in Table 6.
This supports Hypotheses 7a, b, and c, that Aad is a mediator between ad
appeal and VI. The results do not find support for Hypothesis 7d, since ad
source is not significant on either Aad or VI. The results in Table 6 also show
a significant positive relationship between Aad and VI, providing support for
Hypothesis 6b that Aad will influence consumers’ intention to forward an
advertisement. An R-square of 0.51 also underlines the importance of Aad
in explaining VI.
VI and PI
The last part of the comprehensive conceptual model focuses on the relation-
ship between VI and classical advertising variables, such as Ab, and consu-
mers’ intentions to forward an ad, in order to investigate if they also
positively relate to intentions to buy the advertised brand. In testing this part
of the conceptual framework, structural equation modeling (SEM) was car-
ried out using LISREL 8.8. Tables 7 and 8 present the goodness-of-fit and
SEM path coefficient results.
As recommended by numerous researchers, a combination of
goodness-of-fit indices was used to assess the fitness of the model. The
CFI and NFI fit into the most restrictive guidelines presented by Hu and
Bentler (1999), who recommended values equal or higher than 0.95.
Although the model’s RMSEA of 0.1 indicates only a marginally acceptable
fit (Browne and Cudeck 1992), the SRMR of 0.06 fits into the most restrictive
guidelines presented in the literature (Hu and Bentler 1999). Given that most
TABLE 7 SEM Goodness-Of-Fit Results

Global goodness-of-fit statistics
Chi-square 693
Degrees of Freedom 134
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.96
Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.95
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.1
Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) 0.06
of the selected goodness-of-fit statistics fit within the most restrictive cut-off
recommendations, the model fits the data analyzed. As Table 8 and Figure 2
show, from the three demographic variables hypothesized to affect VI, only
education was significant, providing support for Hypothesis 5c. Since higher
levels of education were coded with higher values, the results indicate that
less educated consumers are more likely to forward a viral ad. Hypotheses
5a and b related to age and gender were not supported. The covariate vari-
able income was not found to be significantly related to PI.
The SEM results also provide support for Hypothesis 6a, noting a signifi-
cant positive relationship between Aad and Ab. Hypotheses 8a and b were
also supported, showing significant positive effects of Ab on both VI and
PI. The key relationship that was not tested in the previous literature, the
influence of VI on PI, was also supported by the analysis. All the effect sizes
are seen in Figure 2.
TABLE 8 SEM Path Coefficient Results

Ab VI PI
Aad path coeff. .98

SE (.1)
t value 10.31
Ab path coeff. .84 .42
SE (.06) (.07)
t value 14.05 5.86
VI path coeff. .43
SE (.07)
t value 6.39
Age path coeff. .04
SE (.03)
t value 1.22
Gender path coeff. .08
SE (.09)
t value .95
education path coeff. .08
SE (.04)
t value 2.07
Income path coeff. .02
SE (.03)
t value .57
FIGURE 2 Structural model results.
DISCUSSION
Contributions
The purposes of the empirical analyses conducted here were to (1) analyze
how advertising related characteristics, such as ad appeal and ad source,
influence VI and (2) uncover whether viral ads actually influence PI. As num-
erated below, the study makes several contributions to the existing literature
and practice of viral advertising.
Successful viral advertising campaigns attract the attention of the audi-
ence with engaging appeals, and hold the audiences interests by creating
positive Aad and Ab, which lead to the ads getting forwarded as well as to
purchases of the brand. The results found all three types of ad appeals were
significant for both Aad and VI. The results confirmed that humorous and
sexual ad appeals positively influence Aad and VI. Additionally, the results
of the statistical analysis, including both VI and actual viral behavior (via
the e-mail proxy for the ‘‘Like’’ button), indicate that humorous appeal has
the highest impact on viral advertisements and therefore the highest potential
when creating ads for the purposes of making them viral.
While the results did find a positive relationship between sexual appeal
and Aad, VI, and PI, the sexual ad had the lowest effect size of the three types
of ad appeals examined. A possible explanation for this might be because of
the overtly strong sex appeal presented by the ad used in the study.
Regarding source of the ad (i.e., known versus unknown), the data ana-
lyzed did not support the study’s hypotheses. This suggests consumers did
not find ads coming from unknown sources any different from ads originat-
ing from known sources. This indicates good opportunities for new as well
as relatively unknown companies wishing to harness the power of viral
advertising, since consumers’ lack of awareness for these firms should not
have an impact on the viral prospects of these firms’ ads.
The study focused on the relationship between Aad and VI. It was
hypothesized that Aad would positively influence VI, a hypothesis that was
supported by the data analysis. Equally important, the results supported
the positive influence of Aad on VI, as well as Aad’s mediational role in
the relationship between ad appeals and VI, thus incorporating an estab-
lished advertising variable related to viral ads and emphasizing the impor-
tance of the audience liking the advertisement.
Consistent with previous research, it was found that Aad has a signifi-
cant positive effect on Ab. In addition, the study noted a positive relationship
between Ab, and VI as well as PI. These findings demonstrate that it is impor-
tant for consumers to like the brand as well as the ad in order for advertise-
ments to become viral.
Another relationship tested in this model was the influence of VI on PI.
Viral advertising’s potential to increase consumer communication and lead to
increased sales and reduced marketing costs has especially been debated in
practitioner journals (Dobele et al. 2007; Fattah 2000). However, until now
there has been a paucity of published empirical studies focusing on the
relationship between VI and PI, leading some practitioners and researchers
to wonder about the potential of viral ads (i.e., whether or not they actually
lead to sales) (Rappaport 2014). The results found here indicate that consu-
mers’ intentions to forward an ad positively influence their intentions to buy
the advertised product. This finding is a significant contribution to the dis-
cussion related to viral ads’ potential to lead to sales, and represents one
of the major discoveries of this study.
The authors also introduced key demographic variables in the model
and found support for a negative relationship between education and VI.
Other demographic variables such as age and gender were not significant
in the study. This might be due to the widespread use of the Internet and
the relative homogenization of Internet usage and online behavior.
Finally, the field study was conducted in the United States by using
actual ads not previously seen by respondents; simulating social media beha-
vior via a national sample improves the external validity of the results.
Managerial Implications
The aforementioned results may help practitioners see a clearer picture regard-
ing the viral tools at their disposal so that they can make informed decisions
regarding their inclusion in advertising strategy. As pointed out by Vollmer and

Precourt (2008) as well as Karen Nelson-Field (2013), consumers are spending
more time with media, which allows them to have more control over the buy-
ing process. Aaker and Smith (2010) correctly stated that today’s consumers
want to buy but do not want to be sold to. Viral advertising is appealing to
advertisers because it provides a great fit in the current era of consumer control.
This study is a first step in providing practitioners with a profile of the
video ad and user characteristics necessary for an ad to become viral. This
research takes elements of interest for practitioners, such as what type of
appeals make ads viral, what is the best source for promoting a viral ad,
and what are the best target segments that marketers should focus on, and
presents empirical data in order to scientifically assess these relationships.
In addition, after analyzing the elements that make an ad viral, this study also
clarifies the relationship between liking an ad, forwarding it, and actually
wanting to buy the promoted product.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Since the purpose of this study was to provide a general overview of VI, the
authors did not analyze the more detailed aspects of consumer responses to
viral advertising such as what type of humor and sexual appeals work best,
and for which types of consumers. This is an important consideration,
especially given that Nelson-Field (2013) reported that intensity of an emotion-
al appeal is an important factor influencing sharing behavior. A future study
including the different levels of appeals as well as other types of appeals such
as ‘‘fear’’ or ‘‘sadness’’ may add more to the understanding of viral advertising.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J., and A. Smith. 2010. The dragonfly effect. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Akar, E., and B. Topçu. 2011. An examination of the factors influencing consumers’
attitudes toward social media marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce 10:35–
67. doi:10.1080=15332861.2011.558456.
Alden, D. L., W. D. Hoyer, and C. Lee. 1993. Identifying global and culture-specific
dimensions of humor in advertising: A multinational analysis. Journal of Market-
ing 57:64–75. doi:10.2307=1252027.
Bagozzi, R. P., M. Gopinath, and P. U. Nyer. 1999. The role of emotions in marketing.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27:184–206.
Barasch, A., and J. Berger. 2014. Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How audience size
affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research 51:286–99.
doi:10.1509=jmr.13.0238.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173–82. doi:10.1037==0022-3514.
51.6.1173.
Berger, J., and K. L. Milkman. 2012. What makes online content viral? Journal of
Marketing Research 49:192–205. doi:10.1509=jmr.10.0353.
Biehal, G., D. Stephens, and E. Curlo. 1992. Attitude toward the ad and brand choice.
Journal of Advertising 21:19–37. doi:10.1080=00913367.1992.10673373.
Botha, E., and M. Reyneke. 2013. To share or not to share: The role of content and emo-
tion in viral marketing. Journal of Public Affairs 13 (2): 160–71. doi:10.1002=pa.1471.
Brown, M. R., R. K. Bhadury, and N. K. Pope. 2010. The impact of comedic violence
on viral advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 39 (1): 49–66.
doi:10.2753=joa0091-3367390104.
Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit.
Sociological Methods Research 21:230–58. doi:10.1177=0049124192021002005.
Chen, T., and H.-M. Lee. 2014. Why do we share? The impact of viral videos drama-
tized to sell: How microfilm advertising works. Journal of Advertising Research
54:292–303. doi:10.2501=jar-54-3-292-303.
Cheung, P., L. Greenacre, and L. Freeman. 2014. Referral types and peer activation:
Who to ask? Journal of Marketing Management 30:295–311. doi:10.1080=

0267257x.2013.811282.
Chiu, H.-C., Y.-C. Hsieh, Y.-H. Kao, and M. Lee. 2007. The determinants of email
receivers’ disseminating behaviors on the Internet. Journal of Advertising
Research 47:524–34. doi:10.2501=s0021849907070547.
Chu, S.-C. 2011. Viral advertising in social media: Participation in Facebook groups
and responses among college-aged users. Journal of Interactive Advertising
12:30–43. doi:10.1080=15252019.2011.10722189.
Churchill, G. A., and G. P. Moschis. 1979. Television and interpersonal influences on
adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research 6:23–35. doi:10.
1086=208745.
Cline, T. W., M. B. Altsech, and J. J. Kellaris. 2003. When does humor enhance or
inhibit ad responses? The moderating role of the need for humor. Journal of
Advertising 32:31–45. doi:10.1080=00913367.2003.10639134.
Cruz, D., and C. Fill. 2008. Evaluating viral marketing: Isolating the key criteria.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 26:743–58. doi:10.1108=02634500810916690.
Datta, P. R., D. N. Chowdhury, and B. R. Chakraborty. 2005. Viral marketing:
New form of word-of-mouth through Internet. The Business Review 3:69–75.
Dobele, A., D. Toleman, and M. Beverland. 2005. Controlled infection! Spreading the
brand message through viral marketing. Business Horizons 48:143–49.
Dobele, A., A. Lindgreen, M. Beverland, J. Vanhamme, and R. van Wijk. 2007. Why
pass on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons
50:291–304.
De Gregorio, F., and Y. Sung. 2010. Understanding attitudes toward and behaviors in
response to product placement: A consumer socialization framework. Journal
of Advertising 39:83–96. doi:10.2753=joa0091-3367390106.
Eckler, P., and P. Bolls. 2011. Spreading the virus: Emotional tone of viral advertising
and its effect on forwarding intentions and attitudes. Journal of Interactive
Advertising 11:1–11. doi:10.1080=15252019.2011.10722180.
Edell, J. A., and M. C. Burke. 1987. The power of feelings in understanding advertis-
ing effects. The Journal of Consumer Research 14:421–33.
Fattah, H. M. 2000. Viral marketing is nothing new. Technology Marketing Intelli-

gence 20:1–4.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An intro-
duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Grifoni, P., A. D’Andrea, and F. Ferri. 2013. An integrated framework for on-line viral
marketing campaign planning. International Business Research 6:22–32.
doi:10.5539=ibr.v6n1p22.
Goodey, C., and R. East. 2008. Testing the market maven concept. Journal of
Marketing Management 24:265–82. doi:10.1362=026725708x306095.
Henke, L. L. 2013. Breaking through the clutter: The impact of emotions and flow on
viral marketing. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal 17:111–20.
Hinz, O., B. Skiera, C. Barrot, and J. U. Becker. 2011. Seeding strategies for viral mar-
keting: An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing 75:55–71. doi:10.1509=
jm.10.0088.
Horovitz, B. 2009. Pistachio industry hopes risqué ad campaign goes viral. USA
Today, October 5.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6:1–55. doi:10.1080=10705519909540118.
Kirby, J., and P. Marsden. 2006. Connected marketing. The viral, buzz and word of
mouth revolution. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Korgaonkar, P. K., E. J. Karson, and I. Akaah. 1997. Direct marketing advertising: the
assents, the dissents, and the ambivalents. Journal of Advertising Research 37:41–55.
Korgaonkar, P. K., and L. D. Wolin. 1999. A multivariate analysis of web usage.
Journal of Advertising Research 39:53–68.
Laczniak, R. N., and L. Carlson. 1989. Examining the influence of attitude-toward-
the-ad on brand attitudes. Journal of Business Research 19:303–11.
Libai, B., E. Muller, and R. Peres. 2013. Decomposing the value of word-of-mouth
seeding programs: Acceleration versus expansion. Journal of Marketing
Research 50:161–76. doi:10.1509=jmr.11.0305.
Liu, F., H. Cheng, and J. Li. 2009. Consumer responses to sex appeal advertising: A
cross-cultural study. International Marketing Review 26:501–20. doi:10.1108=
02651330910972002.
Liu-Thompkins, Y. 2012. Seeding viral content: The role of message and network
factors. Journal of Advertising Research 53:465–78. doi:10.2501=jar-52-4-465-478.
Lovett, R. P., R. Peres, and R. Shachar. 2013. On brands and word of mouth. Journal
of Marketing Research 50:427–44. doi:10.1509=jmr.11.0458.
Mackenzie, S. B., and R. J. Lutz. 1989. An empirical examination of the structural
antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Jour-
nal of Marketing 53:48–65. doi:10.2307=1251413.
Mackenzie, S. B., R. J. Lutz, and G. E. Belch. 1986. The role of attitude toward the ad
as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations.
Journal of Marketing Research 23:130–43. doi:10.2307=3151660.
Maxham, J. G., and R. G. Netemeyer. 2002. A longitudinal study of complaining cus-
tomers’ evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. Journal of
Marketing 66:57–71. doi:10.1509=jmkg.66.4.57.18512.
Mitchell, A. A., and J. C. Olson. 1981. Are product a beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Research 18:318–32.
Muehling, D. D., and M. McCann. 1993. Attitude toward the ad: A review. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising 15:25–58. doi:10.1080=10641734.
1993.10505002.
Nelson-Field, K. 2013. Viral marketing: The science of sharing. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Petrescu, M., and P. K. Korgaonkar. 2011. Viral advertising: Definitional review and
synthesis. Journal of Internet Commerce 10:208–26. doi:10.1080=15332861.
2011.596007.
Phelps, J. E., R. Lewis, L. Mobilio, D. Perry, and N. Raman. 2004. Viral marketing or
electronic word-of-mouth advertising: Examining consumer responses and
motivations to pass along e-mail. Journal of Advertising Research 44:333–48.
Plummer, J., S. D. Rappaport, T. Hall, and R. Barocci. 2007. Online advertising
playbook: Proven strategies and tested tactics from the Advertising Research
Foundation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Porter, L., and G. J. Golan. 2006. From subservient chickens to brawny men: A com-
parison of viral advertising to television advertising. Journal of Interactive

Advertising 6:30–38. doi:10.1080=15252019.2006.10722116.
Rappaport, S. D. 2014. Lessons learned from 197 metrics, 150 studies, and 12 essays:
A field guide to digital metrics. Journal of Advertising Research 54:110–18.
doi:10.2501=jar-54-1-110-118.
Reichert, T., M. S. Latour, and J. B. Ford. 2011. The naked truth: Revealing the affinity
for graphic sexual appeals in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research
51:436–48. doi:10.2501=jar-51-2-436-448.
Schulze, C., L. Schöler, and B. Skiera. 2014. Not all fun and games: Viral marketing
for utilitarian products. Journal of Marketing 78:1–19. doi:10.1509=jm.11.0528.
Scott, C., D. M. Klein, and J. Bryant. 1990. Consumer response to humor in advertis-
ing: A series of field studies using behavioral observation. Journal of Consumer
Research 16:498–501. doi:10.1086=209235.
Shimp, T. A., S. L. Wood, and L. Smarandescu. 2007. Self-generated advertisements:
Testimonials and the perils of consumer exaggeration. Journal of Advertising
Research 47:453–61. doi:10.2501=s002184990707047x.
Shukla, T. 2010. Factors affecting ‘Internet marketing’ campaigns with reference to viral
and permission marketing. The IUP Journal of Management Research 9:26–37.
Simmons, G. J. 2007. i-Branding: Developing the Internet as a branding tool. Market-
ing Intelligence & Planning 25:544–62.
Stanbouli, K. 2003. Marketing viral et publicité. Revue Française du Marketing 192=
193:97–106.
Taylor, D. G., J. E. Lewin, and D. Strutton. 2011. Friends, fans, and followers: Do ads
work on social networks? How gender and age shape receptivity. Journal of
Advertising Research 51:258–75. doi:10.2501=jar-51-1-258-275.
Tellis, G. J. 2004. Effective advertising: Understanding when, how, and why adver-
tising works. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Truong, H. 2010. The top ten successful viral ads of all time by AdAge. http://www.the-
digiwave.com/2010/11/top-ten-viral-ads-of-all-time.html (accessed March 11, 2011)
Valos, M. J., M. T. Ewing, and I. H. Powell. 2010. Practitioner prognostications on the
future of online marketing. Journal of Marketing Management 26:361–76.
doi:10.1080=02672571003594762.
Vázquez-Casielles, R., L. S. Álvarez, and A. B. del Rı́o Lanza. 2013. The word of
mouth dynamic: How positive (and negative) WOM drives purchase prob-
ability: An analysis of interpersonal and non-interpersonal factors. Journal of
Advertising Research 53:43–60. doi:10.2501=jar-53-1-043-060.
Vollmer, C., and G. Precourt. 2008. Always on. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
Weinberger, M. G., and C. S. Gulas. 1992. The impact of humor in advertising: A
review. Journal of Advertising 21:35–59. doi:10.1080=00913367.1992.10673384.
Welker, C. B. 2002. The paradigm of viral communication. Information Services and
Use 22:3–8.
Xiao, Q., W. Zhuang, and M. K. Hsu. 2014. Using social networking sites: What is the
big attraction? Exploring a mediated moderation relationship. Journal of Inter-
net Commerce 13:45–64. doi:10.1080=15332861.2014.898441.
Appendix: Factor Analysis and Reliability for Scale Fit Assessment

VI
Items Loadings
Please estimate the probability that you will forward this ad to your contacts: .845
(likely=unlikely).
Please estimate the probability that you will forward this video to your contacts: .848
(probable=improbable).
Please estimate the probability that you will forward this ad to your contacts: .853
(possible=impossible).
This message is worth sharing with others: .780
How likely are you to spread positive word of mouth about this video? .738
If my friends were looking for this type of product, I’d tell them about the video. .610
Total variance explained: 61.5%
Eigenvalue: 3.7
Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .873
Aad (MacKenzie et al. 1986; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989)
What is your overall reaction to the video you just saw? (good=bad) .865
What is your overall reaction to the video you just saw? (like=dislike) .877
What is your overall reaction to the video you just saw? (favorable=unfavorable) .871
Eigenvalue: 2.28
Ab (MacKenzie et al. 1986; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989)
What is your overall feeling about using the advertised product? (favor.=unfav.) .849
What is your overall feeling about using the advertised product? (good=bad) .866
What is your overall feeling about using the advertised product? (foolish=wise) .832
Eigenvalue: 2.2
PI (MacKenzie et al. 1986; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989)
Please estimate the probability that you will buy the advertised product the next .874
time you buy this type of product (likely=unlikely)
time you buy this type of product (possible=impossible)
time you buy this type of product (probable=improbable)
Eigenvalue: 2.3
View publication stats

Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment On Viral Intentions and Purchase Intentions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment On Viral Intentions and Purchase Intentions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment on Viral Intentions and Purchase

Article in Journal of Internet Commerce · October 2015

Maria Petrescu Pradeep Korgaonkar

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 1533-2861 (Print) 1533-287X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wico20

Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment on Viral

Maria Petrescu, Pradeep Korgaonkar & John Gironda

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2015.1080057

Published online: 27 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [John Gironda] Date: 12 December 2015, At: 19:44

Viral Advertising: A Field Experiment on Viral

This study conducts an investigation of viral advertising by develop-

KEYWORDS advertising appeals, humor, sexual appeal, viral

Online marketing represents the business trend of contemporary times and a

Address correspondence to Maria Petrescu, Nova Southeastern University, Huizenga

and feedback to businesses and other consumers (Datta, Chowdhury, and

of communications among consumers, especially in social networks, as a

FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework.

sub-processes in a framework shown in Figure 1. Viral advertising includes

Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of managerial implications

This research focuses on key elements likely to influence VI and PI depicted

hypothesize, according to previous literature, that humorous ads will posi-

H1a: Humorous ads positively affect Aad.

In a viral context, a humorous ad appeal, including variations of comedic

H1b: Humorous ads positively affect VI.

H2a: Sex appeals in advertising positively affect Aad.

The influence of sex appeals on behavioral intention is especially important

H2b: Sex appeals in advertising positively affect VI.

fore, the authors hypothesize:

H3a: Informative appeals positively affect Aad.

H3b: Informative advertisements negatively affect VI.

advertising, it stands to reason that consumers will be much more receptive

H5a: Age is negatively related to VI.

Additionally, in a market maven study, Goodey and East (2008) concluded

H5b: Women have higher VI than men.

Regarding education and advertising, a review of Muehling and McCann

Finally, the study includes income as a covariate variable influencing consu-

AAD, AB, and VI

H6a: Aad positively affects Ab.

Aad is a key variable measuring consumers’ opinion about a specific adver-

H6b: Aad positively affects consumers’ VI.

MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) defined Aad as a predisposition to respond in a

favorable or unfavorable manner to a specific advertising stimulus during

H8a: Ab positively affects consumers’ VI.

thought to motivate and lead consumers to product trial and acquisition.

H9: VI positively affect consumers’ PI.

Ad source was manipulated by telling the respondents to consider that

Sample Main Study

age, education, income, ethnicity, and location, showed a heterogeneous

Data Analysis and Results

Ad Appeals and Ad Source

TABLE 1 Sample Demographic Distribution

Graduate studies 79 20.4

TABLE 2 MANOVA Results for Ad Appeal and Ad Source

Known Pillai’s Trace .013 2.452 .088

TABLE 3 MANOVA Multiple Comparison for Ad Appeal

Att. Ad Humor .1313 Sex .4696140 .000